About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14
is the in recess for their weekly party caucuses. they will return at 2:15 for more work on then line sales tax bill. a motion to proceed on the bill could come tomorrow unless an agreement is reached today. learn more about your senators with c-span's 2013 congressional direct at this. it is available to order online. a handy guide to the current congress. has information about each member of the hoist and senate. it includes contact information, district maps and committee asassignments. the directory is 12.95 plus shipping and handling and order online. a short time ago we spoke with a capitol hill reporter with the latest on the legislation the senate is debating today on the internet sales tax. gautham nagesh from roll call on capitol hill. what is the purpose of this internet sales bill? >> it would require states online retailers, charge sales tax and collect and remit them when consumers make a purchase online. that includes retailers not within their own state. >> who are some of the bill's supporters and why do some of them say it will level the playing field for retailers? >> well, t
, cutting spending in the tax code, and then i think it also keeps our promises to people to seniors who worked hard their whole life and want to nothing more than a secure retirement. and to our veterans to 0 who we made promises as they donned the uniform and fought for our country. >> host: what about the issue of changed cpi. . >> guest: i start with a basic notion that social security has enci ad itbutedp our shben ttal n part of the discussion. certainly we need to be concerned about the long-term solvent sei of social security but again when retirement security is question mark for so many families. i don't think it should be on the table during this part of the discussion during the budget resolution. look at the real contributors to our deficit and debt as we try tackle those challenges. >> host: two final questions before we go to calls. callers are ready. this is another article during an intimate dinner with democratic senators. how come you were left off the list? [laughter] >> guest: i have no idea. [laughter] but i have been very pleased with the president's increase in ou
taxes. this year raising taxes $600 billion. but there was never an agreement as part of the sequester or the budget control act to raise taxes so that's where we have a lawyer at. this is the problem so in the debate and i remember sitting up when the president guaranteed the american people that the sequester wouldn't hap but it is happening. it's happeningright now. it's infil all. the house has proposed a budget that eliminates the cuts on the defense department but finds other cuts in the government to replace them with. the president is saying he wants to eliminate the sequester. he apparently indicates that he does, that he wants to do that raising taxes and that is a nonstarter. under the current debt path we are increasing spending every year. the difficulty as i pointed out before our committee so many times is half of the reductions in spending and in the sequester follow in defe which lyup onixt entour rn so that is a disproportionate cut. as you talk to congress about the difficulties, i suggest that you go to 1600 pennsylvania avenue and talk to the president, the command
to the budget. the republicans are going to want more tax cuts -- more spending cuts, and the democrats are going to want more tax increases, and i think you'd end up with something that is about 50/50 but that would really be both of them would want to be the pair that solved the yawning budget gap. so, and, you know, i look at my governor, mitch daniels, who i served under -- who's a republican, and he came this and, you know, he -- it was so important for him to change things, to shake things up and -- health care. he pushed an expansion of our medicaid program. with a cigarette tax increase. my god, that sounds pretty democratic. but it, you know, he wanted to leave a legacy with health care. and the one thing that made it republican was it had the health savings account approach. but any, all the other elements -- expanding medicaid to include working adults who didn't have kids and funding with the cigarette tax -- that comes out of the democratic playbook. so, and even our new governor, mike pence, who headed the republican study group when he was a hebb of congress which is -- m
workers pay payroll taxes into a trust fund. all employers pay the same payroll tax into that trust fund and out of that trust fund comes all of the spending or part a services primarily hospital insurance spending. the age i trust funds has exceeded revenue since 2007 and what that means it is the balance of the trust fund and the assets of the trust fund have been declining and they will be totally completed sometime in the middle of the next decade. since the trust fund can't borrow if the laws are changed medicare will be unable to pay full payments for charges in the age i trust fund. it will only be able to reimburse providers 85% of what they are charging. so clearly legislative action has to be made before that he either to raise taxes or slow the growth in spending or preferably a little bit of both. i my reckoning i have completed my assignment and rather than take a gold star as i said i want to have a couple of general observations. the first when we have discussiodiscussio ends like this we should make clear what our goal this. if our goal is to moderate the growth of medica
as well would be people point to kennedy in reducing taxes and actually growing the economy as well as reducing unemployment as well as increasing i think revenue actually increased and he cut rates so i would probably say kennedy. i think kennedy captured the american imagination somewhat. i think falsely sometimes because the media gave him a pass and nowadays i don't think that would happen to either side but i guess i would say kennedy. >> you spoke at howard university last week. do you plan on doing any more outrage and if so what will you do next? >> about three days later i spoke to simmons college which is a historically black college. i thought my receptionist howard was much better than the reception by the left-wing media. i didn't appreciate your reception at howard i think was very fair. i never met curt schmoke before but i was the fan. i've told them i remember back when he was mayor writing about him trying to decriminalize penalties for nonviolent crime which i have always been a supporter of and so i enjoyed meeting curt schmoke. we have the bill on mandatory mini
control act agreement to raise taxes. the president did raise taxes $600 billion, there was never an agreement to raise taxes. so that's where we've got a loggerhead. this is the problem. at the end of debate i remember when the president guaranteed the american people sequester wouldn't happen. but it is happening. it's happening right now in the law. the house has proposed a budget that eliminates cuts on the defense department, besides other cuts to replace them when. the president is saying he wants to eliminate the sequester are apparently indicates he does, but he wants to do it raising taxes and that is a nonstarter. under our current day, we increase spending every year. the difficulty is that pointed out before our committee so many times is half the reductions in spending and sequester file on the defense department come which only make ucmj six of the spending in our government. that is a disproportionate cut. as you talk to congress about the disabilities, i suggest you go to 1600 pennsylvania avenue and talk to the president, commander-in-chief. i am very worried beca
program activities, which covers the entire extent. every one of those had to be equally taxed. the congress imposed a more onerous, morerestrictiverra money from ppa to ppa.my ato m i have these small but not a lot oney anof them are only people. for whatever reason, they decided there needed to be more control over the national intelligence program. the effect of the fy 13 appropriations i did help as assume that it allowed us to move some money around city could move the money into the pot sorority committed to by virtue the fact we are fragments months of the fiscal year before regarded though. it would've been a disaster without it. the downside to allow start, which was good, but for most accounts with three specific exceptions, which i can't discuss here, with less money at the end of the day with the appropriations act and the impact of sequestration was doubled because we had to take and 79, said the rail cut fares about her 10%. >> the realistic impact is helpful. it provided a context to things they might be allowed to do. we have a macro issue of the sequestration,
that covers the entire extent. every one of those had to be eat late taxed. the congress imposed a more onerous, more restrict it from a comma rules that on my ability to move money from ppa to ppa. i have small pdas with not a lot of money but for whatever reason decided there needed to be more over the national intelligence program. the effect of the fy 13 of her rations that did help us in that it allowed us to move money around civic and that the money into the path we are committed to by virtue of the fact were five men in before we got a bill. sowo ba dister t it. a cab structure, did allow new start,t also frommocountschss here was what many at the endf the day and of course the of sequestration was doubled because we had to take it in seven months. iraq i was. ealistic impact. >> that is helpful because it provides more of a context of things we might be able to do. again, we have a macro issue of sequestration can watch everyone recognizes it's in packs on your programs. but i stand legislative authorization not on this committee that the intelligence that could have the skinny
in cyberspace, and are widely believed already to be responsible for some such a tax. china and russia possess formidable capabilities for cyber theft, such as the theft of valuable intellectual property as well as the more traditional areas of espionage, such as spying on our military weapon systems, plans and capabilities. china in particular appears to observe no limit of the theft of american commercial technology. that's cyber theft as a threat that cannot be tolerated. i hope we'll hear from our witnesses about the extent of the problem, and the steps that we can and should take to counter it. the asia-pacific region, another round of belligerence from the dictatorial regime in north korea has caused concern here in the united states, and among our allies in the pacific. that regime has announced its intention to resume a plutonium production, has tested a nuclear device in february that appears to have had a greater yield than previous tests. and has threatened at any time to launch a missile that uld further exacerbatenons. we have read about conflicting intelligence assessments, north
the last four months and even years before that debating issues like taxes, spending, and health care, but the number-one responsibility of the federal government is to keep the american people safe and secure. our response to this attack must be firm and unequivocal. we must send a clear message that we will never compromise our value or our freedom in the face of terrorist violence. we must stay on the offensive against the enemies of civilization and remain vigilant in our day-to-day lives. the victims of boston deserve nothing less. madam president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 649, which the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 649, a bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national inst
reducing taxes have actually growing the economy as well as reducing unemployment, as well as, you know, increasing i think reverend actually increased even though he cut rates. so i would probably say kennedy. i think kennedy also captured the american imagination somewhat. i think falsely sometimes though because the media gave him a pass. nowadays i don't think that would happen. on either side. but i guess i would say kennedy among the once since i've been living. >> senator, you spoke at the university last week. how do you think your message was received there? do you plan on doing any more outreach like that? if so, what would you do differently? >> about three days late i spoke to simmons college which is historically a black college in louisville. i thought my reception at howard was much better than the left wing media. so if you're here from the left wing media, i didn't appreciate your recession. by howard i think was very fair. i had never met kurt schmoke before but i've always been a fan of kurt schmoke. i told that i could remember back and probably when he was mayor, re
possessed in this country? and who would pay for it? would gun owners be subject to still more fees or taxes for exercising their second amendment rights? who would have access to the so-called registry? would the public know who owns guns and who does not? who would ensure that this sensitive information is protected and not used for political purposes, and how? we do not know the answers to these questions, but we do know that such restrictions will not prevent the next tragedy. we should not start down this dangerous road. what should we do instead? i have a few suggestions. instead of undermining the second amendment, mr. president, congress should focus its attention on three areas. first, i believe that robust prosecution of violent criminals is the best deterrent for violent crime. prosecutors should punish to the fullest extent of the law individuals who misuse guns, knives or anything else to commit violent crimes. there should be no leniency, mr. president, what ever for the commission of such crimes. secondly, we should examine and address any deficiencies -- and we have them -- i
every bill is too big and every deal tends to be today. so for example, like on tax reform, tomorrow i would lower the income tax. if we can compromise on the number i would lower it to 17% tomorrow. just do it. i don't care if people predicted less revenue, less revenue means more revenue in economy. if you in an enormous boost to ththe con and we like under kennedy, like under coolidge and like under reagan when you reduced rates, sometimes you get more revenue. that is because the deal is to be. same with immigration. we make it harder on ourselves are the debt commission, we make it a lot harder to find a deal when it has a thousand moving parts but i think we should go with the things we agree on and boom, boom, boom. it's why the rate -- that's why the public is so upset with us. all the stuff we agree on we won't pass because we say that will be the sweeter for the bigger deal. which we never seem to be able to get to one that break up all these big deals into smaller deals? i tried to pass the stand these a, science and technology these is expanding those. i tried to pass it by
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)